The policing of tolerance had no inbuilt limits and no obvious logic. Why was ‘‘ethnic pride’’ a virtue and ‘‘nationalism’’ a sickness? Why had it suddenly become criminal to ask questions today that it was considered a citizen’s duty to ask ten years ago? Erudite philosophers of tolerance such as Jürgen Habermas might have been able to untangle such questions and draw the proper distinctions. Political elites could resolve them by ﬁat. But they left the person of average intellect and social status feeling confused and disempowered. A democracy cannot long tolerate a system that makes an advanced degree in sociology or a high government position a prerequisite for expressing the slightest worry about the way one’s country is going.

The virtues of the multicultural era were elite virtues. The British sociologist Geoff Dench suspected, with good reason, that favouring elites was a large part of the point of multiculturalism. Conﬂicts in a striving meritocracy, he noted “can probably be managed more easily where there are groups whose membership of the nation is ambiguous, who are very dependent on elite sponsorship, and whose presence ﬂushes out ethnocentric responses among the masses which can then be held against them. A society tied to the notion of meritocracy may therefore have a particular need for minorities.”

Exactly. And let's not forget, women are the fount and ground zero of PC. This is because PC jihads in alignment with real jihads help women purge the workplace of men, their great rivals.

The Academic sphere, for example, is almost entirely female dominated. This is true increasingly in Math and Science. I am a member of an organization that provides money, and after-school education in math and science to poor kids in the Southern California area.

We have just selected this round of students, and of the twenty selected, all but three are girls. Yes, in math and science.

Overlaid alongside the elite issue is the female advantage. Women gain when ordinary men are purged from the workforce and much of public life. Dangerous workplace competitors eliminated, and the few men who remain are by definition, Alpha.

Why was ‘‘ethnic pride’’ a virtue and ‘‘nationalism’’ a sickness?The former advances the new globalized elite strategy of "divide & conquer" (yes, they now use that strategy on their own populace) while the latter does just the opposite.

But the question posed by the author is missing the real point here: the old Western elites waged endless battles between national territories while the new Western elites are now globalized elites who seek to atomize the group identification of their respective peoples (nationalism). War is now waged internally against the national people themselves.

The only risk of war between nations or territories today is an international war (allies) against any national elite that refuses to get with the globalized elite program (Serbia, Iraq, Iran, Korea) i.e. a war against supposed reactionary provincial hillbilly elites (this rule seems to apply to all elites except the elites in China who always receive a dispensation in political calculations because of the sheer size of the Chinese population and the resulting military ramifications).

PS The new Western elite strategy is the old Eastern elite strategy variously called Bolshevism/Leninism/Stalinism.

He writes well. I wonder if his book has any presciptions for what we should do about the problems he identifies. I'm getting tired of writers who identify the issues (Melanie Phillips, Mark Steyn, et al) but don't offer any suggestions for action.

What the article doesn't mention is that France went down the assimilationist path. They require everything to be in French, don't even take statistics on demographics, teach French history and want everybody to be French. Germany and England have tried to do it in a more multicultural way.

The extent of each countries Muslim problem isn't based on the policies they adopt towards their Muslims but proportional to how many they've been stupid enough to let in in the first place.

The author is trying to argue that it COULD'VE worked if it wasn't for those crazy liberals. The real reason it doesn't is because of human nature and the truth of genetic similarity theory. If Europe trades in multi-culturalism for neo-conism they won't be any better off.

for me, inlike Pat Buchanan, is pretty obvious that the American Constitution, by refusing two crucial laws, is indeed the mother of multiculturalism. get over it americans, Ruth Baden Ginsburg, and not Sam Alito, is the true interpreter of the constitution

the two laws, that the whole of mankind accepted as self evident truths until then, are:- official religion- blood based citizenship

the 14th amendment, given the facts above, is correctly interpreted by americans judges. Whoever is born in the US territory is an American. Period.

You can see that throughout the world, Anti-american hatred is mostly based on native reaction to American influence trying to revoke those laws. Be an arab who understands that freedom of religion means destruction of islam, or a chinese who knows that free markets means anglo-american ownership of chinese export industry (meaning the pure blooded chinese will pay rent in China for foreigners), anti-americanism is actually hatred of the American constitution

multiculturalism- a moral dominance game based on voluntary poverty of ethnic and national pride? Obey me, for I am better than you- see how lacking in racist pride I am;I am without any ethnic pride at all; in fact I am without any patriotic spirit at all. Therefore I deserve to run your government, you racist.

I've liked Caldwell since his "Hill of Beans" column in the NY Press in the 90's and I've been waiting for this for a while. I like the way he writes, and he's one of the few at the Weekly Standard that seem not to parrot the neocon line. However, the NY Times hired him to review Buchanan's Death of the West at its release, and he went after it pretty savagely, which is what they wanted, of course. Now here he is writing a similar book a few years on.

I remember these words well. They were spoken to me by a young, Czech national on temporary assignment stateside with my former employer. They were in response to my question about communism in the old Czechoslavakia. He and I had been chatting about my visit to Prague; the visit was just prior to the Wall collapsing.

Multiculturalism is no different from communism. Except there are no internal exiles; there is not dispossession by mass movement of the native born population to, say, east of the Urals. Instead the Third World nationals are brought in to dispossess the native born in situ.

This is why George Bush is such an impossibly vile man. His MO was to flood the US with tens of millions of impoverished, illiterate, feral Hispanics, and get them to stick around with freebies such as "free" health care and "cheap" mortgages.

I think t99 has a psychotic illness. Paranoia, delusions, and believing television shows are real are symptoms. I don't say this as an insult. The mentally ill deserve compassion. Testing/Whiskey/Ric Locke: The atypical antipsychotics work well for many people.

That said, boys, even white boys, are increasingly disconnected from school. They also seem less interested in learning or doing on their own than older men. The 18 year old guys who don't go to college don't seem to be learning trades, or sales. They're playing video games.

Maybe some helpful GSS blogger would check out changes in proxies for self-education and self-improvement in the not touchy-feely sense.

The education gap should be considered a problem by traditionalists and progressives alike. If one's on the left, lots of men won't pull their weight, and society loses what they could have contributed.

I'm not convinced that an intentional war against boys causes most of the gap. I think it's mostly unintentional consequences of multiculturalism and diversity. A few factors: IQ flat-earthism, discipline, and safety

For whatever reasons, guys tend to be more easily distracted, less able to rapidly and smoothly switch attention than girls. Disruptive students and poor discipline will tend to hurt boys more. Cognitively and behaviorally diverse classrooms have a disparate impact on boys. But we have less tracking mostly for racial, not gender reasons. Schools de-emphasized discipline (I mean sitting and being quiet, not hitting kids) because blacks aren't good at it.

Recess, gym, and extracurriculars seem more important to boys than girls, for both liking and doing well in school. But more NAMs means less recess. Since NAMs have lower IQ on average, they need more time drilling to learn basics. That time comes from recess, extracurriculars, music, art. Because the diversity behaves badly, recess turns too violent, so it gets cut or nerfed. NAMs need school breakfasts, ESL, security officers, etc. Those things cost money, so schools cut nerdish things like AV and electronics clubs to pay for it. Not to mention, technical extracurriculars, arts, and drama mostly appeal to WHAMs* so cutting them is fair.

I'm sure culture and bio cultural causes contribute to the gender gap. Lots of modern escapism appeals more to boys. Video games and pornography come to mind.

Reduced prenatal and infant mortality also reduces selection against congenital defects and diseases. Children of older parents have more genetic problems. There may be way more white boys with cognitive problems than even a couple generations ago. T gondii or other infections that affect personality and/or intelligence might be higher than in the past. T gondii even affects the sexes differently.

*WHAM: White and Asian Minorities. It is unfair that whites have two letters, but Asians only have. one, so perhaps WAMS. The acronym is even valid where whites are a minority, It doesn't require Jews or Indians to self-identify as white. Plus, I like the word.

Luckily for continental Europe, their hostile, under performing minority is not very appealing or charismatic to the indigenous population. Europeans won't convert to Islam in large numbers. Europeans won't ape Arab clothing, slang and lifestyle. The left won't try to eliminate paternal investment. To whatever extent assimilation happens, it will probably be the best Arab women.

There's more mutual attraction between Arab/Persian women and white men than between black women and white men. Possibly the smartest couple of Mideastern women will deracinate, marry Europeans and have white children.

Having a fairly uniform hostile minority in many countries will the developing white European identity. The differences between the Dutch and French will seem trivial when they compare themselves to Arabs and Africans.

Africans who live in Europe are pretty unmixed, and will stay that way. European men live among sexually liberated white women, and don't have the easy access to African women that American men had. European women are afraid of AIDS. Africans in Europe won't have a very talented tenth. The few mullatos there are will be obviously mixed, and Europeans might not be fooled into thinking they represent cultural uplift.

"We have just selected this round of students, and of the twenty selected, all but three are girls. Yes, in math and science."

t99,

You don't say how old these boys and girls are. I know so many women who got into math or science related fields like medicine and engineering and quit because they wanted to be moms. Pushing women into career paths they don't want just because you can may not be that wise. None of the men I know who went into medicine or engineering quit.

I wonder if it might be in the long-term interest of our Jewish elites to ally themselves with the democratic majorities in the countries where they live. Otherwise, in their non-zero competition with WASPS and other larger ethnic minorities, whom they consistently out-compete, they will find themselves essentially without allies and therefore an inviting target of resentment. ) Goodness knows the various ethnic groups who make up the working-class majority is without allies in the upper reaches of our society. They could use some help and would probably return the favor. Otherwise, how long can the US be expected to sacrifice its interests for -- to take the most obvious example -- the military security of the state of Israel. Just wondering.

Meritocracy always struck me as an exceptionally dishonest term. Every society is a meritocracy. They differ about what they consider to be meritorious.

Our modern "multicutural societies" (there's a contradiction in terms) see merit in the act of being multicultural, and regard nationalism and ethnic pride as original sin. Which is inchoherent and contradictionary, but there is no reqirement that those in power must be rational.

The real rationale behind this movment, as has been noted, is good old-fashioned divide-and conquer.

“And in this day and age what is it that constitutes the principle underlying the power of the State? Why, it is science. Yes, science--Science of government, science of administration and financial science; the science of fleecing the flocks of the people without their bleating too loudly and, when they start to bleat, the science of urging silence, patience and obedience upon them by means of a scientifically organised force: the science of deceiving and dividing the masses of the people and keeping them allways in a salutary ignorance lest they ever become able, by helping one another and pooling their efforts, to conjure up a power capable of overturning States.” - Bakunin

"Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist." JS Mill

This was the classical liberal understanding of the state for about two hundred years. Even in the sixties it would have been taken as unexceptional. Today, it sounds "fascistic".

It is remarkable how completely and utterly the accepted range of thought has been altered, and all done by a tiny elite in defiance of popular opinion.

And far from removing the gatekeepers of thought the internet seems only to consolidate their power.

A society tied to the notion of meritocracy may therefore have a particular need for minorities.” The contrary case seems more reasonable. In a diverse multiethnic society, meritocracy becomes impossible. Power sharing is negotiated between the competing ethnic groups. Like in New York City.

It is remarkable how completely and utterly the accepted range of thought has been altered, and all done by a tiny elite in defiance of popular opinion.

The range of thought has not been restricted in defiance of public opinion, but in collaboration with sections of the public. New England fell first to this stupidity, and from there the regional elite exported it to the rest of the country.

the 14th amendment, given the facts above, is correctly interpreted by americans judges. Whoever is born in the US territory is an American. Period.

A) The courts have never made such a ruling.

B) Such a ruling, if made, would be clearly counter to the US Constitition. That would be no impediment to Ginsberg, but the point is that there is no such defect in the Constitution as you are alleging. The 14th Amendment (which was not, incidentally, ever ratified) does not bestow US citizenship on anybody born within the United States.

Why [Bush] has never been charged with treason escapes me.Well, who would charge him? On immigration ALL the elites, no matter what their stated party or political beliefs, are in complete agreement - let'em come.

"Elite" has become a misnomer that typifies the reality-inverting language of these upside-down times.As commonly used, here at least, it means "those who run the show". There is no implication that the people in question possess great intelligence. (Except from those silly IQ fetishists who think that Jews are the Master Race, of course.)

Jews need to get off the open-borders, multi-culturalism band wagon NOW. It is a matter of self-preservation for them. Third world immigration is going to destroy the country socially and economically. After it has happened (even before it has happened, when we see that the process is inevitable and irreversible) whites will turn against the Jews with a savagery which will astonish them.

I do not speak as one who wishes to see this happen. I have a Jewish son-in-law and two half Jewish grandchildren. But the Jews need to wake up. You cannot seek to destroy the ethnic majority of your country without provoking a terrible backlash.

Isn't that one of the roots of Jewish Progressivism -- at least from a pragmatic perspective? Why else would so many high-earning, business-centric Jews be Democrats? If not to convey the exact faux-populist identity you allude to.

This is the book that's finally going to do it. People are going to read it, then read "Spent", and then things are finally going to be put right. More books, please, MORE BOOKS! We'll read our way to victory!

rob:The education gap should be considered a problem by traditionalists and progressives alike. If one's on the left, lots of men won't pull their weight, and society loses what they could have contributed.

Rob, regarding your first comment, thank you -- I added it to a document where I have been compiling reasons to homeschool. I am not a supermom by any means, but I think I'll hate homeschooling less than I would hate sending my kids to public school when the time comes.

So basically, mass immigration is needed by the elites to expose nationalism amongst the native born population.This in turn allows the elites to maintain power by being 'forced' to import bigger and more permanent immigrant voting blocs, in order to 'combat' the 'nationalist urge'.

A perpetual motion machine, created by and for the elites who rule by proxy an artificial citizenry made up of economic opportunists, hostile to western beliefs.

Ron -- I go by the numbers. Men are unemployed by much greater factors now than in past recessions, compared to women. Their income is down, way down. Compared to women.

Moreover, women don't have an interest in husbands, most of them being single. This is a huge change. Dang Blogger wont' take the links, but google the Reuters male unemployment or Richard Florida's discussion of the same and you can find the raw data.

And yes TV is important. It is the selling point for female consumers, and tells you what messages work for female consumers. Attitudes expressed there WORK.

Richard -- Agreed, but many neocons are skeptical of assimilation of Muslims, including noted ones like Steyn and Coulter. GWB was at heart a liberal. Which is exactly why Liberals hated him so much.

Roger -- It is not an "elite" conspiracy, but rather the huge demographic change in women (mostly single now) that makes PC and Multiculturalism so powerful and attractive. WHO are the PC enforcers in the workplace? Not men. They don't benefit from it, women do. As Steve pointed out, if women had been married at 1984 rates, McCain would have won. Obama took single women 70-29. That's his margin of victory. It's no accident either that Obama advisors like Robert Reich want no White Men getting stimulus spending. Women's parties in Europe, ally themselves openly with Islamist parties (see Brussels Journal for details).

Because they receive solid benefits. Technology, rising income and education for women, transformed their objectives and interests profoundly. Steve's insight into the "Affordable Family Foundation" is good but flawed ... because increasingly women are not static in their desires, wanting and getting radically different things from when he was a young man.

Take illegal immigration. For women, a net plus. No real competition for office jobs, and cheap household labor making single motherhood more affordable.

Africans who live in Europe are pretty unmixed, and will stay that way. European men live among sexually liberated white women, and don't have the easy access to African women that American men had. European women are afraid of AIDS. Africans in Europe won't have a very talented tenth. The few mullatos there are will be obviously mixed, and Europeans might not be fooled into thinking they represent cultural uplift.Not so. I live in London and I see white women with mulatto children literally all the time. In fact it is so common that I would guess that nearly ten percent of the children born to white women in London have black fathers.

Of course, you won't be surprised to find out that most of these kids grow up in single mother households, their black dads having cheerfully disappeared early on.

Let me add, Israeli nationalism is very unpopular. Unpopular in Europe among both elites and the people, and unpopular in America, where most of the Democratic Party would be overjoyed if Israel were nuked out of existence. In fact, support for Israel correlates highly with average to below average income and Evangelicals. It's the Palin and Huckabee voters who support Israel, and the Obama and Pelosi (and Ron Paul) voters who despise it's existence.

You see that phenomena, overlaid by female support for trans-nationalism and anti-Israel feeling, in Israel itself. Tzipi Livni got considerable support for her platform of Palestinian statehood as rockets from Hezbollah and Hamas rained down on most of Israel, her votes coming close to Netanyahu. Israeli academics charge that Israel's armed forces are "racist" for not raping Arab women! THAT is uber-PC.

If even Israel, a small (less than 5 million Jews) nation surrounded by people intent on both repeating the Holocaust and who deny it ever happened, can fall victim to this attitude, that's definitive proof in my eyes that ONLY large changes in women's attitudes and ways of living explain PC, not some conspiracy of elites. Oh elites benefit from it, and keep it around, but it's main support is WOMEN.

PC did not come out of the ether, or from some elites forehead like Athena. It's the product of women's social power and independence. And it's not going away until women's very way of being changes, radically. Until, to put it baldly, women NEED ordinary men once again. Since PC is aimed at ordinary men front and center.

As for TV, well yes of course everyone should study it intently. Production studios, broadcasters, and advertisers spend collectively billions of dollars to reach an almost exclusively female audience. Telling you EXACTLY what messages succeed with women and what don't. You don't think the billions spent every year just "happen" now do you?

"the two laws, that the whole of mankind accepted as self evident truths until then, are:- official religion- blood based citizenship"

-

"You can see that throughout the world, Anti-american hatred is mostly based on native reaction to American influence trying to revoke those laws. Be an arab who understands that freedom of religion means destruction of islam, or a chinese who knows that free markets means anglo-american ownership of chinese export industry (meaning the pure blooded chinese will pay rent in China for foreigners), anti-americanism is actually hatred of the American constitution"

**

BG,

this has to be THE BEST summary of this insidious paradox, ever written!!!!!

At some point, thousands of US troops will be leaving military service to return to civilian life. These men will be some of the most battle hardened combart veterns who have ever served our nation. No doubt the Department for Homeland Security will forward all their names to the SPLC.

"Let me add, Israeli nationalism is very unpopular. Unpopular in Europe among both elites and the people, and unpopular in America, where most of the Democratic Party would be overjoyed if Israel were nuked out of existence."

"If you refuse to see what women have to gain from making high-status workplaces hostile to men, especially white men, then you are part of the problem."

Still, most women would rather be married or at least 'taken care' of by a man.

I know U (or ur buddy T-boy) are goin to say that they'll 'settle' to be in a 'soft' harem with the ridiculously few 'alphas' around, but that largely for the third world; it is far from the norm for the average (not the 'coasters') White women.

Perhaps by starting off not chasing after or dealing with women who have hearts as black as coal, many men will begin to see this.

Otherwise turn into an obsessive, bitter 'Johnny-one song' like a well-known commentator here.

T99 - Israeli nationalism is very unpopular. Unpopular in Europe among both elites and the people, and unpopular in America, where most of the Democratic Party would be overjoyed if Israel were nuked out of existence.

Yet we hear that 80% of American Jews vote Democrat. Can it be they are so misguided or do they fundamentally understand something about the Democrat party that we dont?

Alternatively, and Im always saying this to conservatives who care strongly about Israel, if 80% of American Jews dont care about Israel, apparently, then why should you?

No. [Women] are not the fount [of political correctness]. They are "useful idiots".

We have Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem and the rest of the feminist shock troops to thank for brainwashing (not all, but enough) women into viewing their genetic partners antagonistically.

While I think Testy's gone a little(?) bit paranoid, it's dangerous to underestimate feminism and the degree to which it has harmed society by creating that antagonism. Muslim and Mestizo women don't view their men that way, and the result is that they're breeding us out of our own countries.

I'm not saying testy is completely wrong in some of the stuff he says about women. It's just that I object to him hijacking every last frickin' thread here to discuss it. No matter the nominal topic, testy can always find some excuse to ride his hobby horse. And then everybody else plays along with him.

We have Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem and the rest of the feminist shock troops to thank for brainwashing (not all, but enough) women into viewing their genetic partners antagonistically.

Friedan, Steinam, et al. aren't women.

If you call up a list of names of major feminist writers and thinkers from the formative period forward, you'll see that their origin and primary allegiance isn't to women at all. They are all members of a very different sort of group, one not related to gender at all.

I would say 98% fit this description.

I omit Kate Millet, though it must be said that the chance of her works being given exposure, positive reviews, and distribution without the above group are slim to none.

it's dangerous to underestimate feminism and the degree to which it has harmed society by creating that antagonism.

It's far more dangerous to underestimate (or to not speak) about the forces that financed, theorized, and propagated 'feminism'. It would be nothing at all for that unsaid group to pick up some other cause or movement which seems totally benign to you now, and turn it into a wrecking ball for civilization.

As Goethe said, "“observe this clever race that has internalized the principle that wherever order obtains, there is no profit to be made!"

Are you observing?

Israeli nationalism is very unpopular. Unpopular in Europe among both elites and the people, and unpopular in America, where most of the Democratic Party would be overjoyed if Israel were nuked out of existence.

There is nothing else to say about this opinion except that it is insane.

Oh, except that it's the sort of thing that Mencius Moldbug might say.

Is there some sort of theory about group evolutionary strategies that might explain how what appear to be men of above average intelligence cannot comprehend that they are peddling the most outrageous and easily disprovable untruths?

Such a theory would probably have to incorporate new ideas about self-deception that have been developed in cognitive science in the past two decades. A dab of social identity theory might also be helpful.

"As if there's a paucity of females participating in porn. As if a surprising percentage of women aren't au courant with porny modes of grooming."Davenport, are you really that amazingly dumb? Through the magic of recording stuff and playing it back later, a very small number of woman-hours spent acting in porn results in a much greater number of man-hours spent watching it.

I've never even heard of a chick who lost her job because she couldn't resist watching NSFW stuff at work.

The porn adoption goes more like "dude likes porn, tells girlfriend what he likes, girlfriend does it to please him."

mjgh, I meant Continental Europe, but honestly I was talking out of my nether regions. England's gone, unless the BNP comes to power. Is it possible that your just seeing blacks assimilating into the white underclass? These aren't clever, pretty girls you're seeing, are they? Are there many Belgian, French or Danish women having African kids?

Let me remind you all that the most successful far-right movements in Europe are the ones which are notably pro-Israel and pro-Jewish.

Geert Wilders, for instance, is so close to various Israeli figures in the Netherlands that he's sometimes (semi-jokingly) accused of being a Mossad agent.

Depending on your point of view, this means that either:

1) The Jews are all-powerful and are only allowing pro-Jewish anti-immigration movements to flourish.2) The whole "Jewish question" is just a big sidetrack from the real issues and isn't helping at all.

Lucius needs to stop being so paranoid. Blogger.com eats a lot of the comments posted. Just repost. Problem solved. And bitching about a grammar nazi is pretty ironic coming from a guy who obsessively posts about trivial HTML problems and fills every thread with his incessant whining about how Steve is "censoring" him.

1) The Jews are all-powerful and are only allowing pro-Jewish anti-immigration movements to flourish.2) The whole "Jewish question" is just a big sidetrack from the real issues and isn't helping at all.

I saw surprisingly many young, pretty, well dressed women with black kids on a past visit to Portsmouth. The people there weren't very fond of foreigners, but obviously got along well with their black neighbours.

Rob/D. Davenport-according to a Sports Illustrated story, the local strippers in Boston were among the first to sport the "Landing Strip" look in homage to the single strip of black tape the greatest hockey player of all time, Bobby Orr, had on his stick blade!

We have Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem and the rest of the feminist shock troops to thank for brainwashing (not all, but enough) women into viewing their genetic partners antagonistically.The critical groundwork was laid well before they came on the scene.

Mind you, I don't think all of it was bad. There's much to be thankful for. You don't really want to live in a society in which a "gentleman" could challenge you to a duel for insulting his "honor," do you? Aren't you pleased at the "change" that took place? I am.

Laney,

As Goethe said, "“observe this clever race that has internalized the principle that wherever order obtains, there is no profit to be made!"I hope you're sitting down for this one, Col: apparently the Talmud states "A hero is one who knows how to make a friend out of an enemy."

Scoff all you like, but quite clearly you stand to learn something from it.

Take illegal immigration. For women, a net plus. No real competition for office jobs, and cheap household labor making single motherhood more affordable.WRONG. Mexican immigration is a net loss for women. Forget about the privatization of profits and socialization of costs? Ethnic genetic interests? Urban sprawl? Crime? Misogyny?

You seem to really need for liberalism to make sense somewhere near its face. Trouble is, it doesn't. It can't make sense at the level of white demographics you seem to need it to.

And yes TV is important. It is the selling point for female consumers, and tells you what messages work for female consumers. Attitudes expressed there WORK.Nope, you're still not getting it. The media is not simply a lab for observing human behavior. It's a vehicle for changing human behavior. THE vehicle.

testing99:let's not forget, women are the fount and ground zero of PC... Women gain when ordinary men are purged from the workforce and much of public life.

ben tillman:No... They are "useful idiots".

rob:The porn adoption goes more like "dude likes porn, tells girlfriend what he likes, girlfriend does it to please him."

silver:The critical groundwork was laid well before they came on the scene.

The alternate explanation is that women [by and large] cannot innately sense the difference between right and wrong - that they are incapable of making decisions for themselves [especially decisions involving morality] - and that they simply do what they are told to do.

[Apparently that was more or less Aristotle's view of the situation, 2350 years ago.]

If that is true, then men [well, the good men, not the evil men] have, in our era, abdicated their responsibility to teach women the difference between right and wrong.

In particular, while women may very well be "the fount and ground zero of PC", it may also be the case that they have no conscious awareness of how they are being manipulated.

[Which, in turn, begs the question of just who it is that is doing the manipulating.]

PS: For the record, chicks like Sarah Palin & Liz Cheney do offer me just the faintest glimmer of hope that there might be at least a handful of women who defy this maxim.

Oh elites benefit from it, and keep it around, but it's main support is WOMEN.

You seem to move the goalposts here. First, the main beneficiaries are women. Then, the main support is women. I mention this because benefit & support are very different things.

As Ben rightly points out, women are useful idiots. Most women are VERY MUCH NOT the sort of defectives who will go on believing in the matrix after seeing how much destruction it wreaks, and how little gain it brings. Women would drop it like a hot potato if men put their foot down. Unfortunately, men are AWOL.

Yet we hear that 80% of American Jews vote Democrat. Can it be they are so misguided or do they fundamentally understand something about the Democrat party that we dont?

*Facepalm*

You HAD to ask him that? He LIVES for that. Now he gets to tell us how Jews in America are all Israel-hating SWPL anti-Semites...

Depending on your point of view, this means that either:

1) The Jews are all-powerful and are only allowing pro-Jewish anti-immigration movements to flourish.2) The whole "Jewish question" is just a big sidetrack from the real issues and isn't helping at all.

3) Jews don't have anywhere near the juice in Europe that they do in America, so they're more open to compromise.

And bitching about a grammar nazi is pretty ironic coming from a guy who obsessively posts about trivial HTML problems and fills every thread with his incessant whining about how Steve is "censoring" him.

Need I point out that ad homs from a guy named "Anonymous" are pretty ironic? And thanks for reminding me I need a space after my end-tags to make my HTML come out looking like something other than crap.

There's much to be thankful for. You don't really want to live in a society in which a "gentleman" could challenge you to a duel for insulting his "honor," do you?

I don't think men were engaging in many duels when Betty Friedan came along.

Yes, I'm glad that women can work, go to college, drive, use birth control, decide for themselves who to marry, whatever. As I said, it's the antagonism - the continuing antagonism - that's so destructive. It seems to be slowly fading away, but not fast enough.

Alternatively, and Im always saying this to conservatives who care strongly about Israel, if 80% of American Jews dont care about Israel, apparently, then why should you?

T99's original comment was what I was trying to refute.

Or have I horribly messed everything up?

Of course I dont believe for moment that those 80% of American Jews voting Dem are indifferent to Israel. They know perfectly well Israel is safe with either party in power in the US. However if they really are indifferent then my point stands in its own right. Its the sort of thing I would love to post at LGF, that neo-con hellhole.

"The alternate explanation is that women [by and large] cannot innately sense the difference between right and wrong - that they are incapable of making decisions for themselves [especially decisions involving morality] - and that they simply do what they are told to do." - P.B.I.W.

This is a disturbing thought I've had from time to time. I know many fewer women, in person and in the literature, with outstanding moralities. Fewer serial killers, fewer lone heroes, fewer whose example dramatically altered our thoughts on ethics and morality. Very few women will stand up for a lone, hen-picked individual when the mob is out to get him. If I hold position Z, and a bunch of people of angry (but nonviolent) people hold position A, it's much more likely that a guy who holds position C will stand up for me than a couple of women who hold position X or Y. Position A is the moral position, as "dictated by the situation".

I've wondered the same thing about certain sexual patterns - girls willfully becoming sluts, losing people's respect, and simultaneously thumbing their nose at Dworkin feminism and Christian morality ... all to what end? Given the favored sexual acts, the answer can't always be "orgasm". Fitting in with the other girls is the answer, I guess. I think most men simply can't imagine making such a decision, but then again most women can't imagine doing those skateboard tricks simply as a way of standing out from other boys.

I wonder about cognitive dissonance - if women are better at abolishing theirs by amending away whatever they're not currently being told to do. Men are better at "thinking the unthinkable", if you will.

It appears that, on morality as well as IQ, men have a higher standard deviation.

If that is true, then men [well, the good men, not the evil men] have, in our era, abdicated their responsibility to teach women the difference between right and wrong.

I wouldn't put it the same way you do, but yeah. Women need men for a number of things, and political sanity is one of them.

The eternal caveat: that I judge women harshly doesn't necessitate I cut men any slack. Humans in general are followers, not leaders. But men, or rather a portion of men, are the drivers of political sanity. They're the drivers of pretty much everything politically, unless you have EN's disease, and then going into a booth and pulling a lever for Tweedledee or Tweedledum is the driver of pretty much everything politically.

Homeschooling is so easy, it's shocking. It only takes 2-3 hours a day and you get to do fun stuff with your kids. Also you don't have to go the snail's pace of public school. It's amazing how fast kids can go without a whole class to slow them down. Most kids can graduate by 16 including AP classes. Good luck

"The alternate explanation is that women [by and large] cannot innately sense the difference between right and wrong - that they are incapable of making decisions for themselves [especially decisions involving morality] - and that they simply do what they are told to do.

[Apparently that was more or less Aristotle's view of the situation, 2350 years ago.] "

Interesting idea. It is my understanding that women generally score lower than men on an assessment of moral values based on Kohlberg's stages of moral development.

Women average level 3, men average level 4.

Some psychologists naturally want to fix that gap and suggest alternate assessments for women.

I don't think men were engaging in many duels when Betty Friedan came along.Right, by then something had changed. Well, what changed it? In no small part the "culture of critique" that we're all supposed to lament as the source of all our woes.

The inevitable t99: "It is not an 'elite' conspiracy...WHO are the PC enforcers in the workplace? Not men. They don't benefit from it, women do. As Steve pointed out, if women had been married at 1984 rates, McCain would have won."

And yet McCain no more represents the interests of ordinary white men than does Obama. So per your theory single-white women voted clear-sightedly in support of their interests, but ordinary white men keep deludedly supporting a system that produced a candidate who in reality is at least as hostile toward them as any liberal on the "other" side. Sounds to me like white men have a problem more fundamental than the PC-bims at the office. Fix the ultimate problem and you'd be a long way toward fixing the proximate one.

The alternate explanation is that women [by and large] cannot innately sense the difference between right and wrong - that they are incapable of making decisions for themselves [especially decisions involving morality] - and that they simply do what they are told to do.

[Apparently that was more or less Aristotle's view of the situation, 2350 years ago.]

Yes, this is exactly right. It's like the way some birds can sense the magnetic lines of the earth while humans cannot. Women don't have an innate sense of right and wrong, they follow along with the crowd, which works sometimes and doesn't work other times. Women need to be in a position of submission to authority in order to live useful productive lives. Not only Aristotle, but God says this Himself in the book of Genesis, and it's repeated in the New Testament, and its been believed by virtually every person who's ever lived throughout all of history except for certain liberals living in Western countries in the past few decades.

If that is true, then men [well, the good men, not the evil men] have, in our era, abdicated their responsibility to teach women the difference between right and wrong.

Your point is valid, but it's somewhat unfair to say "abdicated." Some may have abdicated voluntarily, but many others have been violently overthrown by the most radical political system in history that supports every rebellion (by women, children, minorities) and forcefully attacks every authority that attempts to defend itself.

In particular, while women may very well be "the fount and ground zero of PC", it may also be the case that they have no conscious awareness of how they are being manipulated.

This is very true, I've seen it in countless cases. Women have no conscious understanding of how they have been influenced and by whom. They absorb the surrounding zeitgeist at a sub-conscious level. Having done so, they are astounded whenever they find that someone else doesn't agree with one of their positions, all of which they take to be self-evident.

PS: For the record, chicks like Sarah Palin & Liz Cheney do offer me just the faintest glimmer of hope that there might be at least a handful of women who defy this maxim.

Surely you jest. Sarah Palin and Liz Cheney? Without saying anything more about those two, let's just say that they're hardly exceptions to the rule.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.